Democracy on the Edge: The Dilemma Facing Democrats
As President Donald Trump has edged American democracy toward a precarious state, a debate has erupted within the Democratic Party. Should Democrats moderate their positions to disempower Trump, or should they stand firmly on progressive principles? This dilemma captures a popular stance among progressives, despite the inherent tension.
Ezra Klein, a New York Times columnist and co-founder of Vox, recently articulated this issue. He contends that many who feel alarmed by Trump’s actions might not embrace the logical follow-up: the need to make uncomfortable strategic choices that could increase their electoral success. Such positions require a delicate balancing act between being ideologically pure and political expediency.
The Stakes of Moderation
With the future of democracy hanging in the balance, winning the next two federal elections is paramount for Democrats. To prevent Trump from further consolidating power, particularly over the judiciary, they will need to secure a Senate majority, which is no small feat. Winning statewide elections in key battlegrounds like North Carolina, Ohio, and Iowa—states that have shown strong support for Trump—will likely necessitate a shift towards more conservative stances in those regions.
However, progressives view this argument with skepticism. Political scientists Jake Grumbach and Adam Bonica have proposed that opposing Republican authoritarianism and Democratic moderation need not be contradictory, as moderation may not produce significant electoral benefits at all.
Examining Electoral Reality
In a recent Substack post titled “Do Moderates Do Better?”, Grumbach and Bonica argue two main points:
- The perceived link between moderation and electoral success in House races may be flawed. Once structural factors are accounted for, moderate candidates did not significantly outperform progressive ones in 2024.
- Correlation does not imply causation. Advanced statistical methods show that, when isolating the causal impact of moderation, its benefits are either minimal or nonexistent.
Opponents have challenged Grumbach and Bonica’s conclusions. Statistician Nate Silver criticizes their measure of candidate ideology, claiming it is unreliable, while pollster Lakshya Jain argues that they underestimate the relationship between moderation and electoral success.
The Big Picture
Whether Grumbach and Bonica’s methods are precise or flawed, the broader implications of their findings merit discussion. They suggest that moderating nationally holds little advantage for Democrats. Nevertheless, their empirical work does not conclusively prove this. In fact, their theoretical premises raise questions about it.
Grumbach and Bonica contend that moderation’s benefits have diminished, attributing this shift to the growing nationalization of politics. Where past elections were locally focused, today’s races are steered primarily by national narratives, candidate charisma, and anti-establishment sentiments. This shift has made it less advantageous for candidates to adopt moderate stances.
The Role of Local Identity in Elections
The implications of this nationalization are significant. Voters are increasingly viewing local races through the lens of their broader partisan identities, diminishing the impact that individual candidates can have through unique positions. Today’s House candidates may struggle to communicate distinct ideological identities with voters more attuned to the national Democratic brand.
Even if House and Senate candidates gain less from moderation now than in the past, it doesn’t conclusively negate the potential benefits of a more moderate national agenda. These differing contexts require nuanced assessments of how moderation might apply at different political levels.
Understanding Electoral Preferences
The discourses on moderation often conflate two distinct inquiries: whether a party can benefit from adopting policies that are more widely accepted, and whether candidates who position themselves as moderate outperform their progressive counterparts. For instance, Democrats could gain from taking moderate stances on hot topics while maintaining progressive positions in other areas.
Evidence indicates that aligning political positions with voter preferences remains an effective strategy. A recent study showed that candidates gained 14 percentage points in support after voters learned about their agreement on key issues.
A Call for Balanced Judgments
In the context of a waning democratic structure and near-constant political strife, Democrats must weigh the risks of ideological rigidity. While Grumbach and Bonica offer insights, their findings should not lead to a prematurely dogmatic adherence to leftist principles. Democrats ought to remain flexible enough to navigate these complex realities while promoting a coherent and resounding vision for the future.
For more insights on this topic, you can find the original article Here.
Image Credit: www.vox.com
